Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery

Impact of Patient Race/Ethnicity on Premium Intraocular Lens Utilization

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between social determinants of health and the likelihood of receiving a premium intraocular lens (IOL) at the time of cataract surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of a single-center, academic ophthalmology practice over a one-year period, with a primary outcome measure of placement of either a premium or standard IOL. We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of receiving a premium IOL, stratifying patients based on self-identified race/ethnicity, age, sex, insurance type (private insurance vs. Medicare or Medicaid), estimated household income (based on median household income for zip code), and presence of ocular pathology.

RESULTS

Compared with self-identified White patients, Black patients were least likely to receive premium IOLs (OR=0.220, 95% CI 0.137-0.340, P<0.001), followed by Hispanic patients (OR=0.308, 95% CI 0.104-0.730) and Asian patients (OR=0.479, 95% CI 0.302-0.734). Patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance were also less likely to receive premium IOLs (OR 0.522, 95% CI 0.336-0.784).

CONCLUSIONS

White patients in our practice were more likely to receive premium IOLs than non-White patients, even when controlling for age, sex, insurance type, estimated median household income, and presence of ocular comorbidities. The underlying reason for this disparity should be explored further.

Current Status of Shared Decision-Making in Intraocular Lens Selection for Cataract Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore 1) the level of shared decision-making (SDM) participation in intraocular lens (IOL) selection in cataract patients and the factors that influence this participation and 2) the relationships between preparation for decision-making (PrepDM)and the level of SDM participation and satisfaction with the decision (SWD). Provide guidance for improving SDM in ophthalmology.

Patients and Methods

176 cataract patients were asked to complete the PrepDM scale, the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the SWD instrument in IOL decision-making process. Multiple linear regression was used to analyze the influencing factors of the level of SDM. The Process program and bootstrap sampling method was used to test whether the level of participation in SDM was a mediating variable among the three.

Results

The SDM-Q-9 median score was 77.78 (IQR 31.11-88.89). Patients with a history of surgery in the operative eye (P=0.022) or PrepDM <60 points (P<0.001) had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with no history of surgery in the operative eye or PrepDM ≥60 points. Patients with an education level lower than primary school had lower SDM-Q-9 scores than patients with other education levels (P<0.05). The PrepDM of cataract patients was positively correlated with the level of SDM (r=0.768, P<0.001) and with the SWD (r=0.727, P<0.001), and the level of SDM was positively correlated with the SWD (r=0.856, P<0.001). The level of SDM fully mediated PrepDM and SDW, with a mediating effect value of 0.128 and a mediating effect of 86.66% of the total effect.

Conclusion

The SDM of cataract patients involved in IOL selection was in the upper middle range. Education, history of surgery in the operated eye, and PrepDM were factors that influenced the level of SDM. The level of participation in SDM fully mediated the relationship between PrepDM and SWD.

Is Blepharoplasty Cost-effective? Utility Analysis of Dermatochalasis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty

PURPOSE

This cross-sectional prospective study measured utility values of upper eyelid dermatochalasis to quantify its impact on quality of life and assess cost-effectiveness of upper blepharoplasty.

METHODS

Utility of dermatochalasis was assessed using the standard reference gamble and time trade-off methods, with dual anchor points of perfect eye function and perfect health. The utility value obtained was used to create a Markov model and run a cost-effectiveness analysis of blepharoplasty as a treatment for dermatochalasis while utilizing the societal perspective.

RESULTS

One hundred three patients with dermatochalasis recruited from an urban outpatient ophthalmology clinic completed the utility survey. The authors determined utility values for dermatochalasis ranging from 0.74 to 0.92 depending on the measurement method (standard reference gamble/time trade-off) and anchor points. The cost-effectiveness analysis yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,146 per quality-adjusted life year, well under the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that blepharoplasty would be cost-effective in 88.1% of cases at this willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Dermatochalasis has an impact on quality of life that is significantly associated with level of perceived functional impairment. Rising health care costs have underscored the importance of providing value-based treatment to patients, and the results of this study suggest that blepharoplasty is a cost-effective treatment option for symptomatic bilateral upper eyelid dermatochalasis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Light Adjustable Lens Compared to Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Light Adjustable Lens (LAL; RxSight) in comparison to a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) for individuals undergoing cataract surgery in both eyes.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a Markov model that simulated the patient outcomes and costs associated with undergoing cataract surgery with the LAL or monofocal IOL. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a measure that quantifies the incremental cost in dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatments with the ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $50,000/QALY were considered cost-effective. The model was also evaluated for the impact of uncertainties in parameters using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the LAL is cost-effective compared to monofocal IOLs in patients undergoing cataract surgery, with ICERs of $9,792/QALY (health care perspective) and $10,072/QALY (societal perspective) both significantly below the WTP. The model was most sensitive to patient age, market cost of the LAL, and proportion of patients with residual astigmatism following cataract surgery. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that cataract surgeries in patients starting at age 65 years were cost-effective in 94% of the simulations at a WTP of $50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From both health care and societal perspectives, the study shows cataract surgeries performed with the LAL are cost-effective when compared to those performed with a monofocal IOL. More studies are needed to compare the LAL to other premium lenses that also provide patients with excellent visual outcomes at a higher cost. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(11):777-782.].

Patient Utilization of Premium Intraocular Lenses Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

To compare the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) and sociodemographic characteristics between patients who underwent elective cataract surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the pandemic at the Wilmer Eye Institute.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent cataract surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic (June 1 to November 30, 2019) and during the pandemic (June 1 to November 30, 2020) was conducted. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, race, and insurance, and choice of IOL (premium or standard) were analyzed. The association between timing of surgery and choice of IOL was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The study included 2,877 patients (3,946 eyes) before COVID-19 and 2,564 patients (3,605 eyes) during COVID-19. However, 9.0% (357/3,946) of surgeries before COVID-19 used premium IOLs compared with 11.1% (399/3,605) during COVID-19 ( P =0.004). There was no difference in the racial characteristics of patients between before and during COVID-19. After adjusting for time of surgery and demographics, the odds of choosing premium IOLs for black patients was 0.32 times the odds for white patients ( P <0.001). There was an increase in private-insured patients but a decrease in Medicare-insured patients during COVID-19. After adjusting for time of surgery and demographics, private-insured patients had higher odds of choosing premium IOLs ( P <0.001), whereas Medicaid-insured patients had lower odds ( P =0.007) when compared with Medicare-insured patients.

CONCLUSION

More patients chose premium IOLs during COVID-19 than before COVID-19, concurrent with change in insurance status. White patients were more likely to choose premium IOLs than black patients, as were private-insured patients compared with Medicare-insured patients.

Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses: A Retrospective, Comparative Study between Three Different Models

The purpose of this study was to compare the visual performance and optical quality between three new enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). This retrospective study included patients affected by cataracts with corneal astigmatism less than 0.75 D and no ocular comorbidities who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of Tecnis Eyhance ICB00 (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, USA), Vivinex Impress XY1-EM (Hoya Surgical Optics, Singapore) or IsoPure 123 (PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium) IOLs. Three months postoperatively, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distant, and intermediate and near visual acuities were measured. Binocular defocus curve, photopic contrast sensitivity, Point Spread Function (PSF), low order aberrations (LOAs), high order aberrations (HOAs), objective scatter index (OSI), halo and glare perception were also evaluated. This study included a total of 72 eyes from 36 patients. Visual acuity outcomes, PSF, LOAs, HOAs and OSI were similar between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of photopic contrast sensitivity, halo or glare perception. In patients without ocular comorbidities, the Eyhance ICB00 IOL, the Vivinex Impress IOL and the Isopure IOL-even though based on different optical properties-provided similar results in terms of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and intraocular aberrations, with no influence on photic phenomena.

Visual outcomes of non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus and enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses: A case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the visual outcomes of a non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) intraocular lens (IOL) with an enhanced monofocal IOL.

METHODS

We evaluated 76 eyes from 38 patients who had undergone bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of either an EDoF IOL (AcrySof IQ Vivity, n = 40 eyes) or an enhanced monofocal IOL (Tecnis Eyhance, n = 36 eyes). Objective refraction, monocular and binocular uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA, DCIVA), uncorrected and distance-corrected near visual acuity (UNVA, DCNVA), binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, halo and glare perception, and spectacle independence were compared.

RESULTS

Monocular and binocular UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, and DCIVA were comparable in both groups, whereas UNVA and DCNVA were significantly better with the Vivity group than with the Eyhance group. The two groups had no statistically significant difference regarding photopic and scotopic contrast sensitivities or halo and glare perception. Compared to the Eyhance IOL, the Vivity IOL had a larger landing zone in the defocus curve and provided higher spectacle independence for near vision.

CONCLUSION

Both the AcrySof IQ Vivity and Tecnis Eyhance IOLs had excellent distant and intermediate visual acuity, while the former had more satisfactory near vision outcomes with greater spectacle independence rate. No differences were obtained between two IOLs in terms of patient satisfaction and visual disturbances such as halo and glare.

Visual outcomes, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction of pseudophakic mini-monovision using a new monofocal intraocular lens

Modified monovision-or "mini-monovision"-is an alternative method to multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) for treating presbyopia. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients bilaterally implanted with the new enhanced monofocal Tecnis Eyhance (ICB00) IOLs with the mini-monovision technique to improve near vision. In this retrospective case series, the medical records of 50 patients (100 eyes) who underwent bilateral cataract surgery were reviewed. Patients were divided into the Emmetropia and Mini-monovision groups based on the postoperative spherical equivalent and residual myopia. The binocular visual acuity for far (4 m), intermediate (66 cm), and near (40 cm) distances, binocular defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, visual symptoms, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction rates were evaluated at 3 months postoperatively. The binocular uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, incidence of photic phenomena, and patient satisfaction were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the binocular uncorrected near visual acuities and spectacle independence rates were significantly better in the Mini-monovision group (p < 0.001). Conclusively, the pseudophakic mini-monovision technique using enhanced monofocal IOLs may be a promising option for presbyopia correction in patients unsuitable for multifocal IOLs.

Cost-benefit analysis of a trifocal intraocular lens versus a monofocal intraocular lens from the patient's perspective in the United States

Purpose

To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of AcrySof IQ PanOptix trifocal intraocular lens (TFNT00 IOL) versus AcrySof monofocal IOL (SN60AT) from the patient perspective in the United States (US).

Methods

A de novo Markov model was developed to estimate the mean total lifetime patient costs and vision-related quality of life (measured as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs)) with each intervention (TFNT00 and SN60AT) and the incremental differences between these two treatments. The resulting incremental quality of life gain was mapped to the US patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gain to estimate the lifetime net monetary value, measured as the net monetary benefit of TFNT00 IOL. Model inputs (transition probabilities, costs, discount rate, utilities, and event rates) were derived from the FDA IDE study (NCT03280108), published literature, clinical experience, and other relevant sources.

Results

Bilateral cataract surgery with implantation of the advanced technology IOL (AT-IOL) TFNT00 provides improved vision-related quality of life (QALY gain of 0.67) at an incremental lifetime cost of $2,783 compared to monofocal IOL. This incremental QALY gain translated into a lifetime net monetary benefit of $30,941 at the patient willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gain. Results were most sensitive to disutility due to wearing glasses, patient out of pocket costs for bilateral AT-IOL procedure, and post-operative spectacle dependence rates.

Conclusions

AcrySof IQ PanOptix IOL provides greater improvement in vision related quality of life compared to no presbyopia correction with a monofocal IOL. This study shows PanOptix is a cost-beneficial treatment strategy for patients willing to pay out of pocket for cataract surgery.

Cost-Effectiveness of Presbyopia Correction Among Seven Strategies of Bilateral Cataract Surgery Based on a Prospective Single-Blind Two-Center Trial in China

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to explore a method to rank the cost-effectiveness of presbyopia correction in diverse strategies of bilateral cataract surgery to provide references for healthcare policymakers in rationalizing resource utilization and surgeons in customizing patient management.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis based on a prospective single-blind two-center clinical trial included seven strategies in bilateral cataract surgery: monofocal, monovision, diffractive bifocal, blended, refractive bifocal, trifocal, and extended depth of focus (EDOF) strategies. The effectiveness according to the objective spectacle independence rate (hereafter "rate", a novel indicator defined as the proportion of patients with binocular uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity all better than 0.1 logMAR, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), costs, average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs, $/1% rate), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/1% incremental rate) were estimated.

RESULTS

In 194 participants (388 eyes), the trifocal strategy achieved the highest rate [93.10% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.8-102.35%)]. The refractive bifocal strategy had the minimum ACER [$45.54/1% rate (95% CI 34.57-56.50)], followed by the blended [$59.10/1% rate (95% CI 31.72-86.48)], diffractive bifocal [$69.06/1% rate (95% CI 30.89-107.21)], EDOF [$72.85/1% rate (95% CI 52.02-93.70)], trifocal [$93.01/1% rate (95% CI 83.23-102.79)], monovision [$136.83/1% rate (95% CI - 55.40 to 329.14)], and monofocal [$264.45/1% rate (95% CI - 97.45 to 626.55)] strategies. Compared with the refractive bifocal strategy, the probabilities that the trifocal strategy (ICER $289.74/1% incremental rate) is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 81.7% and 93.2%, respectively, at the wiliness-to-pay threshold of one and three times China's annual disposable income per capita in 2021 per 10% incremental rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis with ACER and ICER according to objective spectacle independence rate is a helpful tool to identify highly cost-effective presbyopia-correcting strategies in cataract surgery for clinical and policy decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04265846).

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of AcrySof IQ Vivity Intraocular Lens (IOL) from Private Health Fund Perspective in Australia

Purpose

AcrySof IQ Vivity is a unique non-diffractive extended depth of focus intraocular lens with wavefront-shaping X-WAVE technology. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens (DFT015) compared with standard aspheric monofocal intraocular lens (SN60WF), from a private health fund perspective in Australia.

Methods

A Markov model was developed using the following health states: well, need for spectacles (near/distance/bifocal/varifocal), very bothersome visual disturbances (glare/haloes/starbursts) – with/without spectacles, and death. Model inputs were sourced from a randomized clinical study (NCT03010254), published literature, prostheses list and clinical opinion. A lifetime horizon (up to 30 years) was considered, and cost and health outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Model outcomes included incremental cost–effectiveness ratio defined as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gain. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.

Results

Bilateral implantation of DFT015 intraocular lens provided quality adjusted life year gain of 0.16 at an incremental cost of AU$307 compared to bilateral SN60WF, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$1908/quality adjusted life year, well below the cost-effectiveness threshold (Range: AU$45,000-AU$75,000) typically used by Medical Services Advisory Committee in Australia. Results were most sensitive to intraocular lens costs, post-operative spectacle dependence, and disutility due to wearing glasses. Robustness of the results was further confirmed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

Conclusion

AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy with improved vision-related quality of life outcomes for presbyopic cataract surgery patients.

One-year Results of Health-related and Vision-related Quality of Life After Clear Lens Extraction and Multifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation

PURPOSE

Multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs) are effective in treating presbyopia before cataracts develop. This study measured health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and vision-related quality of life (VRQoL) after clear lens extraction (CLE) and MIOL implantation.

DESIGN

Before-and-after study METHODS: Patients were treated in Medilaser Coronaria, CorGroup, Oulu, Finland. HRQoL was measured by a generic 15-dimension (15D) instrument. VRQoL was measured with Visual Function Index-14 (VF-14) questionnaire.

RESULTS

CLE and MIOL implantation was performed in 137 patients. The patient age was 57 ± 6.2 years (mean ± standard deviation), and 58% were women. The near add was 2.1±0.3 diopters (D). The overall HRQoL 15D score increased from 0.938±0.058 to 0.955±0.057 at 6 months (P < .0001 vs baseline) and to 0.948±0.060 at 1 year (P = .02 vs baseline). The VRQoL VF14 score increased from 85.32±15.57 to 96.57±5.07 at 6 months (P < .0001 vs baseline) and to 96.61±6.48 at 1 year (P < .0001 vs baseline). The increase of HRQoL was correlated with the increase of VRQoL (P < .04).

CONCLUSIONS

CLE and MIOL implantation improved HRQoL and VRQoL compared to spectacles in this 1-year follow-up study. Improvement of HRQoL was correlated with VRQoL.

Clinical Outcomes of New Monofocal Intraocular Lenses with Enhanced Intermediate Function Compared with Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes of a new monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) with enhanced intermediate function and an extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL.

SETTING

Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

DESIGN

Nonrandomized prospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Patients presenting for cataract surgery and meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were implanted with new monofocal IOLs with enhanced intermediate function (Tecnis Eyhance ICB00) or EDOF IOLs (Tecnis Symfony ZXR00) bilaterally. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), defocus curves, and contrast sensitivity were compared after 3 months. Patients were administered questionnaires regarding visual symptoms, spectacle independence, overall satisfaction, and lens recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (48 eyes) were enrolled in the Eyhance group and 20 patients (40 eyes) in the Symfony group. Monocular and binocular UDVA, UIVA, and CDVA were similar in the two groups. Monocular UNVA and spectacle independence for near distance were better in the Symfony group, whereas binocular UNVA did not differ significantly in the two groups. Contrast sensitivity, glare and halo, satisfaction, and recommendation rates were similar in the two groups. Although some dissatisfaction and severe glare and halo were reported in the Symfony group, none of these was reported in the Eyhance group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation of the new Eyhance ICB00 IOLs provided comparable clinical performances as bilateral implantation of Symfony ZXR00 IOLs. Binocular UNVA was similar, although spectacle independence was higher in the Symfony group, but this was at the expense of more glare and halos.

Patient-Reported Outcomes/Satisfaction and Spectacle Independence with Blended or Bilateral Multifocal Intraocular Lenses in Cataract Surgery

Purpose

To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction results after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in three groups: two receiving bilateral implantation of the same IOL and another undergoing blended vision with two different multifocal IOLs.

Patients and methods

A questionnaire was administered to patients who had undergone uncomplicated cataract surgery and 2 months of follow-up: the first group underwent bilateral implantation with Alcon’s AcrySof ReSTOR 3.0 lens (“3.0/3.0,” n=78); the second group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 or the ReSTOR ActiveFocus 2.5 toric lens (“2.5 mini-monovision,” n=102); and the third group underwent implantation with the ReSTOR 2.5 lens in the dominant eye and the ReSTOR 3.0 lens in the non-dominant eye (“2.5/3.0,” n=89).

Results

Overall PROs and satisfaction was similar among the groups. Refractive outcomes and accuracy were similar among the groups, but the 2.5 mini-monovision group reported better intermediate vision. Refractive outcome differences were not meaningful among the groups and were not a differentiating factor in PROs. Substantially fewer patients in the 2.5 mini-monovision group noticed glare and halo compared with the 3.0/3.0 group (P<0.0001, chi-square test). No new safety concerns were reported.

Conclusion

The 2.5 mini-monovision results in a higher percentage of patients being satisfied with intermediate vision than bilateral ReSTOR 3.0 or blended vision with ReSTOR 2.5/3.0 implants, but overall PRO differences were not statistically significant.